Watching the world of east London politics

Guest post: Honour and Shame in Tower Hamlets

The following is a guest post by Dan McCurry. Dan is a former chair of the Bow Labour party who provided the photograph for the masthead on this blog. He is a criminal defence legal adviser who grew up in the East End where is his late father was the vicar of St Dunstan’s in Stepney. Lime many others, he found the mayoral election campaign process difficult and he switched his support for the various candidates more than once. The following are his views, not mine, and they were first aired on the Labour Uncut website yesterday. However, given Dan’s activism in the Tower Hamlets Labour party, they’re worth repeating here.

Honour and shame in Tower Hamlets

by Dan McCurry

We used to be proud of spreading our ideas around the world. Now we are confused about how we explain our identity to the people who have settled here.

The problem is that we need to understand their culture and identity, before we can explain to them our own. With 3,000 honour crime complaints to the police last year, maybe this is the issue that we’re failing to comprehend.

It would help to understand what happened in Tower Hamlets last year, when the Labour party collapsed in on itself over the selection of Lutfur Rahman as candidate for mayor.

It started out as a conversation about secularism. But we didn’t know it was about secularism, because in school we learn everything there is to know about Martin Luther King, but nothing about Martin Luther. We know about the rights of minorities, but not about the separation of church and state.

This was in the days when Muslims were considered to be either moderates or extremists, with nothing in between. This perception was encouraged by the fact that the extremists got more airtime, but also due to the taboos about race and religion that suppressed debate about community, but allowed debate about terror.

The row was mostly, but not exclusively, between Cllr Helal Abbas and Cllr Lutfur Rahman. Abbas was not devoutly religious, but Lutfur apparently was, and this is where Lutfur’s increasing clout in the community came from. Including all places of prayer, there are about 40 mosques in Tower Hamlets and most of them see Lutfur as their man.

When Lutfur was first elected as a councillor, he was the apprentice of Abbas. Abbas didn’t complain that Lutfur brought the mosques’ vote with him, but when Lutfur struck out on his own, Abbas was furious. He denounced Lutfur’s religious connections, speaking of the global reaching tentacles of the Islamic forum for Europe, an organisation based at the east London mosque, and supportive of Lutfur.

In east London, all politicians of all parties, seek to tap into faith organisations. When the doors of one are shut, they go knocking on another. Those who condemn these organisations tend to be the ones who have run out of doors to knock on.

The scrutiny of Lutfur’s connections to the east London mosque began when a journalist called Ted Jeory arrived at the local paper. For years councillors had complained that they could never get anyone from the East London Advertiser to cover town hall meetings. Now they were complaining about this guy who kept turning up.

Rather like the way that Arab dictators began by condemning Al-Jazeera, Tower Hamlets councillors quickly switched from condemning, to briefing, Ted Jeory. According to Ted, the briefings came from anyone who was ambitious, and included every candidate who would later stand in the mayoral selection. Others, such as the MP, Jim Fitzpatrick, were fearful that Lutfur could muster enough Labour votes to replace an incumbent.

The fact is that Lutfur was on good terms with religious people across a spectrum of opinion, but he wasn’t a conduit for evil. He just didn’t realise that Labour people consider Islam to be authoritive, and not sharing the same values as us. In the fine line that a Muslim politician must walk, in a British political career, Lutfur was too far on the Bangladeshi side. However, this needs to be put into perspective. It’s not as if he was hanging out with suicide bombers.

The rumours about extremist connections continued and reached a high point when Ted’s reports were picked up by Andrew Gilligan and broadcast in a C4 Dispatches film, where Jim Fitzpatrick took the controversy to a new height by alleging a plot to infiltrate the Labour party with Muslim extremists, “rather like militant infiltrated Labour in the 70s and 80s”.

It sounds like a ridiculous now, but at the time the country was paranoid following the 7/7 bombings and ready to believe anything. Meanwhile, Labour head office was becoming increasingly nervous about what was happening in Tower Hamlets. The persistency of the rumours began to turn even rational minds.

In May 2010, Tower Hamlets had a referendum for a directly elected mayor, resulting in a mandatory six month time-frame for an election. Seeing an opportunity to bypass his isolation within the party, Lutfur ran in the open Labour party selection for mayoral candidate, and easily won, but a report attacking Lutfur, from Abbas, and also one from Cllr Bill Turner, was presented to the NEC and, without committee members having time to read them, a vote was taken to rule Lutfur out as candidate.

Although John Biggs came second in the selection vote, the NEC gave the slot to third place Abbas. They may have feared that they would have been labelled as racist, if they gave the candidacy to a white man.

In response, Lutfur tore up his Labour membership card and announced his intention to run as an independent against Abbas. The two old friends were now sworn enemies and it would be for the electorate to decide who would win. Lutfur did.

In Bangladeshi village society there is little in the way of transparent rule of law. The community is governed by honour and shame. As a system, it seems to work in Bangladesh, but when transferred to the UK, we see both the good and the bad.

We see a low crime rate, juxtaposed against a high perversion of the course of justice, as victims are pressured to drop charges. We see strong family life, juxtaposed with school girls disappearing from the roster, without notice or explanation. We see a moralistic society, where alcohol is shunned. Yet when youths gather in groups on street corners to drink alcohol, as an act of rebellion, they will eventually face severe and violent retribution, from the “community”.

The lack of transparency undermines the justice done by creating other injustices. This is brutally demonstrated when false rumours are spread against individuals who have displeased someone in the community. I first saw this phenomenon when Oona King backed the Iraq war and the community turned on her with the most astonishing slander. She was alleged to be a Mossad spy, who wanted to criminalise the veil and remove halal food from school menus.

The fact that such rumours are unbelievable is beside the point. This kind of attack is a referendum against an individual. If the rumours catch on, then the community consensus has turned against that person. If the rumours fail, then the individual has the respect of the community. However, the attack on Oona was less to do with Iraq and more to do with a consensus in the community that it was time for a Bangladeshi to be MP, and that the MP should be a man.

The allegations against Lutfur are different to the rumours about Oona, in that the target audience was the white community. The Labour party had unwittingly become a part of the system of honour and shame, and had no understanding of the issue to help them cope. The result was division and misery.

Today, Tower Hamlets politics is deeply divided. Every time the two sides of the council meet to agree on working together, the agreement is then sabotaged by Labour people who want to see Lutfur kept permanently out of the party. The bitterness amongst Lutfur’s people is plain and highly visible. They now attack the Labour councillors in return.

So deep are these divisions that Lutfur refuses to sit on the committee that will hire the new chief executive for the local authority. The Labour group has a majority on this committee, but no chief executive is going to take the job without the cooperation of the mayor. Catch 22.

Meanwhile, in the party, with Lutfur gone, there is a lack of good Bangladeshi activists who can make future councillors. It is unrealistic that any of the current Labour councillors would win against Lutfur at a future mayor election. The Bangladeshis see him as a victim, while the white people continue to see him as the Labour bloke.

The situation is bogged down and tragic. If Lutfur was to reapply to join the Labour party, it is likely that he would be readmitted, but he point blank refused to. As far as he’s concerned, he is a victim in all of this. Meanwhile, Ed Miliband has washed his hands of the situation with no explanation as to why.

Shakespeare described the battle scene in Macbeth: “As two spent swimmers that do cling together and choke their art.”

The image of both sides drowning is apt.

Share this: Facebook & Twitter

Like this:

39 Responses

Dear Dan and Ted, I don’t thing the problems in Tower Hamlets and the Labour Party are just about Luftur and the present splits! I haven’t lived in this borough for that long but we had a councillor Clair Hawkins who struck me as a fairly sensible person. At the last election she just decided she had had enough and didn’t stand again. Rushanara Ali completely failed to respond to any correspondence for over a year! Another councillor whose name I forget seems to live in a Bangladeshi bubble and doesn’t reply to my correspondence, I believe he was one of those who migrated to Luftur’s camp. Mr Turner, whom you mentioned above also fails to respond to correspondence and when residents in our neighbourhood were objecting to a planning matter, after showing some interest he then disappeared. We have one councillor, Amy Whitelock, who is responsive. However, it seems local authority staff pay even less attention to councillors than to residents as when she has written on our behalf she receives completely dismissive responses! In fact the council sends fatuous responses to complaints on a regular basis. When we asked how the conservation area we live in was decided upon they couldn’t provide an answer, it appears there is no record, nor could they tell us why the school, a classically designed building, at the end of our road was left out. They came up with several incoherent responses. The council held a ‘consultation’ into the scheme we were objecting to but paid no attention to anything residents had to say and then claimed in a subsequent application that we had agreed with the proposals.

It has to be pointed out that the turnout in the Mayoral election barely passed 25% so it seems Tower Hamlets voters were not exactly enthused by the idea of electing a mayor anyway.

Bill Turner has asked me to say that the reason he stopped responding to Julian’s correspondence is because he said they became abusive. He also says he and Amy work together on casework to avoid duplication.

This has to be one of the most balanced, well in fact the best post I have read on this blog since tme began (I think sometime point in 2010 for this blog actually) and to think the best blog on here is from someone who actually is not the blogger!!!

It explains that the crap thrown against East London Mosque and anyone related to it had mainly to do with certain people throwing their ‘toys out the pram’ like I have said many times before on here and less to do with ‘Muslims taking over a borough in London.

The most interesting thingI have heard recently from a number of Labour cllrs is that Fitzpatirck’s true colours are showing, all be it undercover.

Now how true this is I do not know, maybe Ted could find out and if it is true whether he would print it is another point as it show the man who fed the ‘Muslims invading council’ rubbish to the likes of Ted/Gilligan as a sell out and in turn, embarrass the reporters.

Fitzy has APPARANTLY put a few Labour noses out of joint at as he is colluding with that dreaded Mayor ours and working with him, in return that Lutfur does not go directly against him for MP.

Many say Lutfur’s main ambition is that he wants to become MP for the borough, whether he would really win is another question, I may have read about this ambition of his on this blog (forgive me if I am wrong), but as he won Mayor as an independant could be enough to scare the crap out of Fitzy.

Fitzy will then go onto to use the cliche of ‘I have to work with the Mayor for the benefit of my voters in TH’.

Oh boy I wish this is proven as some reporters who bought into his rubbish will not be looking good!

Yes a city status bid you actually denounced as a waste of money no bet but seeming as Fitzy on board!!!

Let’s see how much Fitzy opposes Lutfur on decisions compared to last year, if he does a lot more, then I’m wrong, if he does a lot less then…..

Touched a nerve Ted.

As for the crap ELM throws itself, what you on about exactly, is it the some of the speakers that are not to your taste, or is it that the Mosque goers played a part in voting in a man that you just don’t like!!!

As for the conspiracy, I don’t do those I just stated what a couple of Labour cllrs have been talking about amongst themselves, now if that’s a conspiracy, then so be it.

It was Howard Dawber who convinced me of the merits of a city status bid and I changed my mind, which I’m sure is not a bad thing is it?

No nerve touched. But let’s play your empirical game: how many of Lutfur’s decisions has Jim opposed this year and what were they? Come on, let’s set the benchmark on this so we can talk again this time next year.

Almoat every pargraph has an idiosyncratic and inaccuate assertion presented as fact, Dan, both in terms of what you seek to present as a culturally aware analysis (it’s not) and in terms of the detail. Much of the analysis of the Bengali community you present is deeply offensive as well as ill-informed.

I won’t provide a detailed critique but it seems to be most unlikely you have be in a position to judge what the opinions of “most” of the mosques in Tower Hamlets are, for example.

I hope the girls and their mother whose picture you have included were consulted about appearing online in this way.

Is any of this to do with your inability to be selected to run for Tower Hamlets Council because of your publicly expressed racist views, or your treatment of female party members over the years?

Your man Jim creates enemies for himself through his own paranoia, but then he is pragmatic when he loses. The first time I started to question whether this whole business was political was on the night Lutfur won. People were devastated, but Jim just shrugged and questioned whether Ed Miliband would want to upset Ken Livingstone over a “silly little business in Tower Hamlets”. That was the first moment I started to realise that maybe it’s all just a game.

Lutfur doesn’t want to be MP right now. He wants to carry on being Mayor without irritation. Ideally, he would like to come back into the party and it would be helpful to the party and to the community if he did.

@Julian

The comment above from Julian Cheyne demonstrate the complete lack of influence that Labour councillors have over Lutfur right now. That would change dramatically if he was brought back in.

I agree with Julian that some councillors live in a Bangla bubble. We need a new concordat for selections. One that actively promotes people who can move with equal ease through both communities rather than just one or the other.

What started out as a journalist being offended that unacceptable authoritarian views were being forwarded, without counter argument, due to the dysfunctional shield of political correctness, developed into campaign to destroy a politician by people who wished to gain by his destruction.

Peter uses the words “kiss and make up” as if it’s all been a bit of a laugh. That’s what got my back up.

I can think of a good explanation why Ed Miliband has “washed his hands” of the situation in LBTH. The same reason why 80% of the boroughs electorate have too – it’s a toxic muddle of introspective factional back biting entangled with racial prejudices cunningly disguised as political correctness and positive discrimination, coupled with inertia and egotistic grandstanding. Enter at your peril.

this exactly the type of condescending neo-colonialist talk is what we have come to expect from Labour nationally and particularly in Tower Hamlets, and the reason why the party has alienated so many second generation ethnic minorities.

Looks like the Labour Party have come to their senses. A bit of soul-searching has helped Dan to realise Labour councillors / party are stuffed unless they stop fighting Lutfur and concentrate on the bigger picture. Lutfur’s not the real enemy the Tories are! I have my views about Lutfur’s independents but they did a good job at last full council recording the sickening collusion between the Tories and Labour. Anyway for these Labour councillors to get re-elected they need to deliver. From what I can see this isn’t happening and won’t happen unless there is a change in leadership. Also imminent boundary changes and weakening party machinery (told money and reliable manpower is lacking big time) means it’s more likely fewer comrades will return in 2014. Ironic isn’t it, Labour tried to design Lutfur’s lot out of the town hall instead they have fallen victim to their own actions. Got to commend Dan for coming out on what must be a difficult subject for Tower Hamlets Labour.

Any criticism of the status quo no matter how gently couched or intelligently argued is always denounced as “deeply offensive”, “racist” (oh dear) and “condescending neo-colonialist” (tony) by the usual suspects seeking to feather their far-left beds. Why is it not permitted for people to criticise the current mess and try to understand why in recent local elections in LBTH the proportion of non-Bengalis participating – most of whom previously supported Labour in this borough – has all but collapsed. I’ll tell you why, because it’s deemed “thought crime” by ‘socialists’ whose instinct is to censor and who would be more at home in 1950s Bulgaria, supported by the other hangers-on who are not really interested in the Labour Party but fit the preferred profile and use it during times of low participation to get ahead. Subsequently all discussion of the matter is shut down by a few noisy people who rely on things staying just the way they are…

no, because your apparent criticism is riddled with assumptions or gross generalisations of the community.

“We used to be proud of spreading our ideas around the world.” . Yes, It was called colonialism. Maybe you are proud of colonialism. But for most bengalis, we remember the induced famines and barbarism of your ‘ideas’.

no, because your apparent criticism is riddled with assumptions or gross generalisations of the community.

“We used to be proud of spreading our ideas around the world.” . Yes, It was called colonialism. Maybe you are proud of colonialism. But for most bengalis, we remember the induced famines and barbarism of your ‘ideas’.

You quote McCurry so I presume you are referring to ‘his’ criticism rather than my response, but to answer the point I think what you say is quite disingenuous because you are over-simplifying what Dan was saying and, it might be said, somewhat putting words in his mouth. You would need to ask him to clarify what he meant by that term, but I would interpret “spreading our ideas around the world” as not being limited to Britain nor simply the British colonial period (of Bangladesh to which you refer, between 1757 and 1947) or even the Marxian concept of ‘neo-colonialism’ but must include other so-called ‘western’ ideas which are clearly anti-colonial such as “democracy”, “equality”, the “universal rights of man” and “self determination” which were not promoted by the British Empire, if you like, but nevertheless are important modern ideas that many from across the political spectrum extol and have sought to spread around the world. To say “the barbarism of your ideas” clearly and prejudicially implies the ideas are all ‘ours’ and that all ‘our’ ideas are ‘barbarous’. This is, to coin your phrase, a gross generalisation or ‘us’ and riddled with extremely negative assumptions the sort of which presumably you yourself would condemn.

There will soon be more outcasts than members in THLP… and that is the problem isn’t it? That is why we are here, because Labour keeps losing members, losing councillors, losing elections. It should be winning here; the poorest borough in the country during a recession… but it isn’t and it won’t be and that is not the fault of the electorate it is the fault of the party. Its the failure to look beyond itself at the people it should be championing, its the abject failure to select decent candidates who aren’t corrupt or nepotistic and who won’t desert the party six weeks later, it’s the failure to reach out beyond village politics, its the utter failure to do anything genuinely meaningful for the hundreds of thousands of ordinary people, its the complete denial the party is in and continues to be in about “infiltration”. Everyone admitted it existed when Abbas had the upper hand but since he has been unceremoniously dumped it is a topic that no one will discuss let alone actually try to do anything about. It is really very sad that so many Labour people (if that is what you are) simply cannot even discuss important issues concerning the local party without resorting to hiding their identities and dishing out smears and insults to anyone who dares question the mess we’re in.

James- The world isnt a nice place mate, this is real life, and this is politics. of course the Labour Party issues, thats why we didnt win the last 2 elections, but unlike yourself running away and writing for a rogue newspaper, we decide to stick it out and fight for the cause.

Its nice to know that you changed your mind just cause you saw lutfur embrace a transvestite person. Says more about your judgemen of character than his.

and the Labour Party unlike Dan Mccurry, dont need to come out in these blogs to sort out our problems, we can do it ourselves, Dan just wants to be involved and he isnt, because no one trusts him

@ James Folgate
Beautiful speech sounds like an election pitch save it for the 2014 selection panel or better still our 2011 AGM. Be the change!
@THpolitics
“and the Labour Party unlike Dan Mccurry, dont need to come out in these blogs to sort out our problems”.

I think the reason this keeps happening is there has never been a discussion in a public forum on any of these issues. Members are simply told things, nobody asks for an opinion there’s no agreed strategy about how we go forward. Perhaps we need a new suit at the top?

Things ran very smoothly when we had a female leader of Labour group. We’ve got lots of fantastic female Cllrs who we never hear from. Actually I think they’re a far higher caliber lol. Considering the current state we’re in I think we’re due another one.

Comments are closed.

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.